I miss that aspect of the past. Maybe I shouldn't but I do.
I miss that aspect of the past. Maybe I shouldn't but I do.
"Orange juice (whatever) causes/cures cancer" or "some person said controversial thing" or "aggressive interviewer with an axe to grind" and actually when you go to the original sources in context this is very rarely justified or true. I actually think the lack of sourcing of things is horrendous when full versions of quoted interviews are usually available to be linked. And then there is the disingenuousness of the people who are attempting to appear in the media, they will literally say anything.
I'm really not sure where we are when I trust most of the podcasts I listen to to tell me more accurate information than the BBC or CNN or Fox or The Times etc. but here we are.
>> I trust most of the podcasts I listen to
But so does pod casters, even Joe "Vitamin D" Rogan does it. Half-truths sell magazines.
It seems we've created a society where being "right" and pointing fingers are highly lucrative ways of conducting ourselves. It seems we have forgotten the ways of the past where even the most unalike could find consensus around basic matters and have fruitful discussions around your point of view as well as mine, because we knew, we're both far from being 100% "right".
The arrogance of the human race, it makes me so sad.
But the thing is Joe (and others) will have the conversations you’re describing- it’s not forgotten. Part of having a good conversation is being comfortable with being wrong. He’s explicit about being a joke comedian sports commentator, and can sympathetically talk with anyone. Conversations with ground rules of truth are those that tend to be dry and pre-processed. The listener can think too and figure out what makes sense. Part of what makes gonzo fun, too.
Focusing too much on truth turns your conversations into legalese. People will be more focused on not being wrong than communicating useful information and ideas.
Conversation happens in half-truths. You can't expect anyone to know all the ins and outs of everything they discuss - even scientists in their field of expertise. These half-truths are usually unintentional.
The media has the problem of half-truths while seeming credible. In the modern media a news reporter reports on a protest and describes it as "mostly peaceful" while in the background you can see buildings on fire. This is an intentional half-truth, but it's branded with the media organization's credibility.
>> correlation != causation
Thank you for that perfect explanation of "what is half-truth".
You know, this also could be a definition for Gonzo journalism which by its nature is 'truth inspired'.
News is, unfortunately, mostly propaganda and de facto marketing & public relations of government officials instead of about interesting topics you can learn from.
There's a lot of noise out there but there's still good journalism happening.